tv [untitled] October 13, 2011 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT
president olague: and the reason it is before us is the siz size,4,600 feet and it is an excessive amount of space for that use. along fillmore and along california and i think that maybe they had taken up one of the retail spaces and probably wouldn't be seeing that, is that right? and in that area, period, and in that fillmore. and trying to get my neighborhood there. and given the use of the retail
down on fillmore, but there is another place around there. the dumpling place. it is independently owned. i am just trying to figure out the impact that it could have cumulatively on the diversity of uses. that is what i think concern some of us, and why we always ask these questions. i am still torn on this. that was a dry cleaners. that is no longer there, unfortunately.
i suspect that means there is no dry cleaner nearby. that is not irresponsibility, or maybe it is. or maybe there are. that is what we struggle with appear, at times. -- president olague:. the staff report -- >> the staff report quoted me as saying -- we have 5900 accounts in the zip code where this is. we have no. chase branches in that said code. trying to be conservative to say what is immediately around the branch, it is about 2500 accounts. these are people that are now taking the bus, increasing the carbon footprint, parking problems, all going to other branches to do their banking. banking is a daily need. no matter how we slice it, people do their banking when they go to the dry cleaner or the supermarket.
we're trying to make it where they can park once and shot twice. commissioner sugaya: i have a quick question. how many of those are merchants along fillmore street? >> i do not have the ones along film noir. of the 2600 in the immediate area, there is probably about 5% to 8% that our business account. i only get it broken down by a person or business. commissioner sugaya: are you going to put out any advertising signs on the park? >> no. all we are doing is writing a check. commissioner sugaya: it is allowed. parklets have advertising. there are ones that have audi on it.
>> that is separate. that is dpw. commissioner moore: i believe commissioner sugaya is still speaking. commissioner sugaya: i am done for the moment. commissioner moore: i do not have questions for you. director, how are we looking at what parklets are? are the suddenly becoming c arrots for people to get approval? the activity, given the strong people and the active sidewalk on fillmore, that should be on fillmore, not california, which is primarily a bus corridor. do you have a question for me? >> that are proposed by,
typically, the merchants organization or an adjacent property owner. commissioner moore: you do not have a plan of where you believe -- >> we look at them individually. we typically want them their places that have food and drink, where they are activated and maintained. commissioner moore: this is a question. i am not trying to dig in the bank on a parklet. a park in front of atms is not want to make the streetlight more active. >> this is across the street, not in front of the bank, near a restaurant. >> there is a bus stop there. commissioner moore: it is right beyond the intersection. >> it is being resound. -- rezoned. president olague: there is no bus stop there.
commissioner moore: he is talking about the parklet being on the north side. the bus coming down california, going westbound, stops right beyond the intersection of fillmore and california. president olague: there is no bus stop there. there is none. >> if i may, at the california bus stop it is the closest is here. commissioner moore: anyway, in this particular case, there was a question of which side of the street is better. president olague: it is front of a food establishment. commissioner moore: it does not have anything to do with enlivening -- i am not asking
the question. commissioner fong: are you ready for me? president olague: we are ready for you. commissioner fong: i want to have a conversation about banks and how they fit into formula retail, but this is a no- brainer. it is off the commercial corridor of fillmore. it will serve -- i do not know how many merchants are there now. but there are merchants who need to make deposits for security reasons, or need quarters and dimes. i think it is ok. it is a vacant space. let us fill san francisco. commissioner antonini: i am also in favor. as was testified, it is really one space that was combined into two with hope of attracting retail clients. it has not been successful.
it is counterintuitive that you would put a branch in if people were not going to use the branch. you do not spend money for no good reason. it makes sense to me. despite the talk about leftover banking, between business by business and other entities that i am involved with, there are a lot of different banks involved. we almost always go personally to these banks, and i are my staff, because we want to make sure things are done the right way. we need to get to the right account and have the personal interaction. i have had a lot of positive experiences with banks having some aspect of banking. that is why they have people at the branches, as well as officers. it is not what it was years ago, as far as each branch of an ultimate authority, but there still is a certain amount of authority.
i would be in favor of approving this. commissioner moore: i want to remind commissioner fong that wells fargo and bank of america are on fillmore. merchants can go deposit their checks and get their change. fillmore has been established as a strong commercial corridor. they have done that for the last 25 to 30 years. chase is a newcomer into this area. they might have local customers, but to make it sound like there are not banking services on a relatively short commercial street is not quite accurate. i wanted to put that to record. as we all said, in addition to sterling, which does business there, we have strong local banks already on the block. i run a small business and i live on nob hill and have to
walked 10 blocks to take my money to the bank. commissioner borden: i wanted to, again, set a couple of last things. both wells fargo and bank of america are charging hughes fees for checking accounts and people are looking for options. a lot of people are upset about the new fees. people need options and should not be forced to stick with someone who is not treating them well. that is something business accounts care about. we try to provide a range of services. there are other vacancies that other small businesses could be going into now. we cannot hold for retail space. we would love for reading to go in there. there are other places along the corridor. but they are not. i think there was a retail store before. the point is, for whatever reason, retail spaces are not taking some of these spaces.
restaurants or other uses are moving into those bases. a lot of that has to do with the internet and the fact that people would rather buy things cheaper online. we have had people testify at hearings that people take pictures of the item in their retail store and then order them on line. we are lucky that overall fillmore is a thriving district. what we really need to be doing is helping support business along the lower fillmore, which is struggling substantially. i did not see this as displacing another use. it is on a block that has an entrance to the parking lot, a mali stone, to gas stations, and a parking lot. the park will be in front of their restaurant that is next to a parking lot. it will be the most lively thing on the block, as a consequence. i think the park, which in no is something the merchants association had been seeking
before -- it is something they wanted, but nobody was around to pay for it. this was the way to go. if we do not think there is any value to the park, perhaps we do not support that. but i do not think we will get another use in the space that will be exactly what we might have wanted anyway. commissioner sugaya: i do not know. i do not know how i am going to vote yet. i will make up my mind when it comes to the roll call. but i do not want to be held hostage by a park. that is not the reason i will vote for the use or not. in any case, that is not a reason to approve something. for me, i would not approve it if it was a request directly on
fillmore. i think this being down a little way, among especially molly stone's and on california street, argues for approval. i will keep thinking about it for the next 20 seconds before a vote to, but it is difficult. i think if this was a building that had been legitimately retail spaces, i might feel a little more reluctant to vote for it, but it seems like the dividing wall in itself was kind of a temporary thing to begin with. it was probably always intended to be one building. i do not mind where the atms are. i think they are better where they are.
commissioner antonini: and in terms of adjacent banks being local, unfortunately bank of america is no longer some francisco-based. it is in north carolina. it is no more local than chase out of new york this. i would not consider it a local bank anymore, unfortunately. president olague: call the question. >> there is a motion on the floor for approval. president olague: what is your issue? commissioner moore: i was going to talk about the location of the atm's dominating more than half of the streetview. picking up from commissioner borden, this bank we have decided to go into the slightly less defined part of the fillmore, where we are hoping to
attract business to extend the vitality of the upper blocks. i would not have had concerns as i have with this particular location. in addition to that, if the atm would be turned sideways and would be subordinate to the attempt of being a people- oriented bank, i would give it an additional plaudit as well. but by saying it is about people service, people coming and going and doing their banking -- i think that is indicated by the fact that right behind the facade, literally in the display area, where you would like to see people, all you see is atm's behind the glass. if it is a bank, if it is supposed to be people-oriented and enlivening the street space, even if only during working hours, at least we would be seeing people.
>> on the motion for approval? commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: no. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: no. >> the motion passes 4-3. thank you. commissioners, item 10, 2011.0198c. 601 14th avenue, southwest avenue. we talked about the request for a continuance, given the jewish
holiday today. the sponsor would like to continue to october 3 -- october 23. president olague: i guess at this point we will hear from all those who are in support of the continuance, or who would like to speak to the continuance in any other way. is the public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. november 10 is a better calendar, because we are going to be moving 49 julian, so it gives room there. >> the only reason i put forward november 3 is we have correspondence from the city attorney's office. the premise is that if it needs to be continued beyond november 3, it can be. president olague: we believe it
for the third, then. that is perfect. commissioner antonini: i second that. aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. president olague: aye. >> the item has been continued. you are not on item 11 -- you are now on item 11. it is for one mccormicks speak. one is for d r on demolition, and one is for the are on construction. -- dr on construction. commissioner sugaya: i ask to be reduced because we helped author the report. -- recused because we helped author the report.
>> the commissioner is recused. >> ilm rick crawford. the case is for discretionary review of the demolition of a two-story single-family dwelling and its replacement with a new three stories single-family dwelling. the dr request comes from a neighbor across the street, representing an ad hoc neighborhood group that came together in opposition of the project. the existing dwelling on the property was constructed in 1908 after the 1906 earthquake and fire, but is not considered a historic resource because it lacks sufficient integrity. the building has been found and sound by the summit of minister, pursuant to planning code section 317. we have a report that
demonstrated it complied with the criteria of that section. the request for feels the building is sound and its historic -- and is historic, and opposes the demolition. the believe staging for the new construction will disrupt the neighborhood. the proposed dwelling is characteristic with the scale and character of the neighborhood. the neighboring buildings are two to three stories in height. buildings on jackson street are four stories tall. a number of two-story buildings on the block are also pollard on the typical two stories -- taller than the typical two- story building. the dwelling of the requestor is also higher than the project height itself. it compares favorably with the existing building.
the city-wide action plan for housing guidelines for streets and alleys states the front wall of a building should not be taller than 1.25 times the width of the alley at the street wall. that would allow the building of 25 feet 6 inches at the st., on mccormick speak. the project is 18 feet on the street, and is only 7 feet 10 inches taller at the roofline. the dr requestor has concerns. he is concerned about the construction limiting driveway access. this is under the jurisdiction of the departments of parking and traffic and public works. these departments must approve any plan to stage construction from this project on the public right of way. there is no parking lot on
mccormick street. the preliminary indication is staging would have to occur elsewhere. the department recommends the commission not take discretionary review of either permit and approve the demolition and new construction as submitted. the old building is not a historic resources and is not sound. the new building is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. i would be happy to answer any questions. vice president miguel: thank you. >> thank you for hearing us. my name is betsy. i lived at no. 4 mccormick. we live in this house. >> we need you to speak into the microphone. >> we lived at no. 4 mccormick,
right there. your documents recommend against the discretionary review. this is a tall one story building. in fact, it is a short two-story building. these were our neighbors at no. 2, which were compared in height to the new project. we have lived in the house since 1989. among this addition was added, we work with our neighbors and their architect to make sure that shuttles were not cast in such a way it blocked our tiny deck in the back. what is behind us, if you look up here -- this is a body shop that runs the whole length of our hourly. with so many shadows cast, they fall across the brick wall, not across an alley or other properties. you can see all of these are relatively short, compared to
the other buildings. i have also taken -- i do not know if that is good to work. i tried to make these big. this was taken from carolyn and bill lee's apartment. they back up to this property of of jackson. you can see they have extensive green space in the back. the building at the end of the street, which has parking that comes in and out, comes through the pacific. the building is coming down. this is a neighbor at no. 3. this is a to family, not a one family, home. this is a multi family apartment building back here. what you can see here with the proposal is that we have a